I have the Optimus Video camera that is really, more or less, the same thing as The Flip - but The Flip looks much easier to use, given how it’s described in The New York Times. 

Look,  I have hardly used the Optimus in the 6 months, or so, that I’ve owned it – the interface and ability to transfer movies and upload them is more important than the functional description (The Optimus and The Flip are really almost the same device – but with a different interface).

 Picture on Left – The Flip – on right  – Optimus Camera

Since I’m going to Paris and Aix soon, and I want to do videos  easily, and make a lot of them - I need devices that make it easy for me to do that.  I’m not interested in making super high quality videos as those would not be suitable for streaming on YouTube – or similar sites – and besides … I’m not that much into Online Videos yet, as a creator, where I’d need that level of quality equipment.  

“… The Flip is a simple camcorder, requiring only four buttons to operate. And it is low-priced, at $120 for a 512-megabyte memory with 30 minutes of recording time, or $150 for twice that much. Don’t expect cinematic color or clarity; videos are of Web-acceptable quality that will not stand up to big-screen viewing.

All software for the instant upload is in the camera, which when connected automatically adds it to a computer. It has options for posting on YouTube or Grouper. Because of a software flaw, one manual step is required (the user must direct the site to find the file on a desktop), but the company says that is being fixed.

At this stage, I just need a device that makes it easy for me to take videos and record my thoughts and observations, and it looks like The Flip does that and the Optimus does not.

Just as a typical Mp3 player and even some Mp4 players that do video are functionally similar to ipod’s, the interface and “feel” of the devices are so different that a “Brand” difference is delivered as a superior customer experience.

Meaning – if I need to take movies – and I don’t read the lousy instructions than physical interface that come with the Optimus – I should junk that camera and use The Flip instead, even if it means, essentially, buying the same device, more or less, again, but with an improved interface.

Now, I want to point out something – easy of use, ease of understanding – desirable in a object is also desirable in a painting or work of art (and sometimes, a well designed consumer product can be a work of art, as well – and some museums do have collections of objects so designated).

I have heard it said, often, that a paintings merit can not be understood in a quick way – that paintings need to be probed, and only gradually convey their meaning – and that modern art is more like a “strain” to understand the intent of the Artist.

But, consider that if there is not an “immediate understanding” that can appeal to the onlooker – they may not want to put in the extra time to understand the hidden meanings in the painting.   If an Artist does something obscure – but full of hidden meaning – and yet, needs perceptive critics to see it – they may be missing the mark – as people to today are much more intelligent – and have very short attention spans – they need to be able to see the merit of a work, enough, right away, to want to invest time in understanding hidden aspects of fine art that take time to absorb.

Which means, artists who require you to come up to their level – in order to understand their Art – may be missing the point of Modern Art – as it exists today – which should appeal to viewers first – on an immediate level – and then, deepen the experience over time.

And that gets me back to MobileCampNYC which I attended yesterday at Pace University – along with 119 others.  The Drip TXT online video (below)

… was probably done with not the most high tech equipment and yet it accomplished something that many artists can’t, even today –  allow onlookers to be engaged in the creation of the work and contribute to it – to have an immediate connection with it – how many painters think that way today? 

Here’s what I wrote down yesterday on Webmetricsguru.com:

“…One thing that struck me while listening to Paul Notzold’s presentation is Art as created by onlookers – by the audience – who create much of the meaning and context via SMS messages.  In a way, Art is performance that happens and may, or may not be, recorded.   Since most of the scenes where Paul Notzold projected his work were in Brooklyn, in areas I’m familiar with, I found his presentation especially interesting.”

My point about The Flip Camera and The Drip Movie are really the same thing – how easy is it for me to be engaged with a work of Art (or a device) – if it’s too hard to grasp something attractive about the work, to begin with, I may not want to invest any more energy to understand the Artists deeper intents.

And when I go into MOMA, or The Whitney, or pretty much, any Modern Art gallery – I’m often struck by how much Art and Artists are expecting of people – that Art is full of hidden meanings and it is up to us, the viewers, to spend our energy to move up to the level of the Artist.   Well ….. 

I’m suggesting – just the reverse – the Artists need to move their work to a level where people can understand the work enough to even want to engage with it.   Just as I have an Optimus Camera that I can’t or won’t use because I don’t have the patience to figure out the interface – I may not do it with Art either – since much of Modern Art is so obsucure, so personal – as to require deep study to understand it.

And by the way, we can’t use that measure when we look at the Art of the Past, in Museums like the Metropolitan or Lourve – historical work needs to be looked at differently since we’re looking into the past – an understanding of historical conventions does help – which is part of why I’m returning to France shortly.